The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Did the Smiths effectively become McCann supporters after January 2008?

25% 25% 
[ 23 ]
61% 61% 
[ 57 ]
14% 14% 
[ 13 ]
 
Total Votes : 93

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Verdi on 23.08.15 19:56

Tony Bennett @ Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:51 am

"I've taken a look over the road at another forum this evening and have been pleasantly surprised to see that there has been a sudden and welcome outbreak of common sense over there on both 'Smithman' and Operation Grange.

Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."


That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors?  I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.

No names, no pack-drill?  For obvious reasons steam is coming out of my ears    aaaah !

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3550
Reputation : 2065
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Verdi on 23.08.15 20:13

@guest12345 wrote:"Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?"
...........................................................................................................................................


I think the reason the investigation is still on-going is because the statements cannot be relied on, therefore OG are having to work from the outside-in rather than inside-out.

Therefore wouldn't it be more sensible and/or profitable to start work inside-out by re-interviewing the main players?

The statements of the Tapas 9 were very quickly deemed worthless due to the contradictions, certain agreed activities and the 'pact of silence' approach, all pointing to the fact that the information within them was fabricated/altered/ manufactured by some, or all of them.

Indeed the Tapas9 statements were/are worthless - even more reason to work inside-out by re-interviewing.  The Metropolitan Police (Operation Grange) are a professional outfit aren't they?

This is why IMO they haven't done a reconstruction... there's no point reconstructing false information, it's just wasting time. The only benefit to doing a reconstruction would be to highlight the fabrications to help eliminate certain times/scenarios, which is when the Tapas lot close up and refuse to do one. Non of them want to put themselves in a vulnerable position which could expose them all to child neglect charges.

The Tapas9 declined to participate in a reconstruction required by the Portuguese police not Operation Grange.  By this time of course they were firmly ensconced back at blighty, without the cooperation of the whole group the exercise was futile.  There was/is nothing to stop Operation Grange insisting on a reconstruction to highlight the inconsistencies in the original statements  - the very reason for the Portuguese requirement.  Question is why haven't they..

I do however think that the OC staff and creche records are important.

Agreed!  Maybe Operation Grange should also be re-interviewing them, after all they did take time out (at the tax payers expense) to swan off to Portugal in quest of various persons of no interest, yet it seems they have neglected key witness on their own doorstep.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3550
Reputation : 2065
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.15 20:44

@Verdi wrote:Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."

That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors?  I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.
The very strange thing is that the oft-repeated claims made over in the other place about our Smithman discussions - "No dissent is allowed on CMOMM - everyone is forced to agree with that dictator Tony Bennett" - actually apply over there rather than over here.

As this thread and the other Smithman threads here make very clear, open debate on here is welcome, and there is no oppressive dictator brooding over every post. Indeed the voting so far on my own thread shows that I am still in a minority - 59% (so far) disagree with my suggestion that Martin Smith has in effect been batting for Team McCann since early 2008. I think it was 'Gaggzy' who saw through all the bluster in the other place, and made a post over here flatly disagreeing with my analysis of Smithman. And he added: 'There, I've done it!" S/he wasn't banned. Wasn't suspended. Wasn't told off. Nothing.

Whereas over there the common position is that the Smiths really did see someone, almost certainy Gerry McCann, but just maybe they were mistaken about who thy saw. That's why I was surprised to see murmurings of some differing views emerging over there. And, yes, all their Smithman discussions are secret over there - members only - unless someone brings the comments over here.

All I want to see on Smithman, like everything else in this contorted and controversial story, is that people give reasons and evidence for their theories. That way we edge nearer and nearer to the truth. 

To give one example.

One of my many 'proofs' that Martin Smith has 'been turned' - or maybe turned himself - into a McCann Team supporter who does their bidding is the extraordinary way in which his description of the age of the man he said he had seen was bent by the McCann Team when they placed an audio summary of his statememt on their website back in May 2009 (it's still there to thos day). 

In his original statement to the PJ, on 26 May 2007, Smth said the age of the man was '35 to 40'.

In a further statement, months later, he changed this to '40'.

But when one heard the Irish voice summarising Martin Smith's statement on the McCanns' website, all of a sudden he is able to be precise and say the man's age was 'about 34 to 35'.

Now why would any reliable witness change a statement made to the police: 'He was 40', to 'He was 34 to 35', when the McCanns wanted a summary of his statement on their website?

The answer surely is that no reliable witness would agree to do that.

There seem to be three possibilities here - all equally unsatisfactory:

1. The McCann Team for reasons best known to themselves wanted the man's age to be '34 to 35' - and Martin Smith meekly agreed

OR

2. Over the passage of time Martin Smith continued to ponder over the age of the man he said he saw for a second or two in the dark and - two years after the event - thought to himself: No, he wasn't 35 to 40, and wasn't 40, but was 'about 34 to 35'

OR

3. The McCann Team changed the age to '34-35' without telling Martin Smith - and Martin Smith has been too timid to object or simply isn't bothered.

Whether you pick (1), (2) or 3) above, Martin Smith isn't going to look too good on the witness stand.

Not one defender of the Smiths as honest witnesses has yet provided an answer to this point - not even Nit-picking Nuala Seaton

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 23.08.15 22:17

At the end of the day Tony, you have made your point/stance clear and I don't see why you need to keep going over and over the same ground.

You will either be proven right or wrong. Nobody knows the answer at this point.

I myself am still suspicious of Gerry's sunglasses in the last photo even accepting PeterMac's assurances from two experts. I have researched the issue over the years and can't see how it is right.

I haven't, however, felt the need to create 8 threads on the subject and repeat my thoughts. I could be wrong and short of doing a reconstruction I can't see how I'll ever find the answer (or for it to matter in the case!). The sunglasses and camera are probably long gone either way.

I'm sure a lot of what is being posted and talked about here and at MMM is born out of frustration of no news from OG. To be honest though I take it over the terrible daily articles we got for so many years.

Bottom line is OG interviewed the Smiths twice and went on Crimewatch to ask the public who the man is. We are not privy to any developments in this yet and all we can do is wait.

I know, and understand why, a lot think cover-up in this case......I think more like cover my arse. I think there is a lot of difference between the two.

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Verdi on 23.08.15 22:45

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Verdi wrote:Threads over there are on Smithman seem to be as common as over here. The latest one, titled 'That Smithman sighting', already has 431 posts, 48 of them today, prompted (as is often the case over there) by a post on CMOMM this morning referring to Smithman. For some strange reason, however, that discussion thread cannot be read by guests."

That would explain why the forum appears to lack motivation - it's all behind closed doors?  I call that cowardice, rather like running a blog that censures comment.
The very strange thing is that the oft-repeated claims made over in the other place about our Smithman discussions - "No dissent is allowed on CMOMM - everyone is forced to agree with that dictator Tony Bennett" - actually apply over there rather than over here.

As this thread and the other Smithman threads here make very clear, open debate on here is welcome, and there is no oppressive dictator brooding over every post. Indeed the voting so far on my own thread shows that I am still in a minority - 59% (so far) disagree with my suggestion that Martin Smith has in effect been batting for Team McCann since early 2008. I think it was 'Gaggzy' who saw through all the bluster in the other place, and made a post over here flatly disagreeing with my analysis of Smithman. And he added: 'There, I've done it!" S/he wasn't banned. Wasn't suspended. Wasn't told off. Nothing.

Whereas over there the common position is that the Smiths really did see someone, almost certainy Gerry McCann, but just maybe they were mistaken about who thy saw. That's why I was surprised to see murmurings of some differing views emerging over there. And, yes, all their Smithman discussions are secret over there - members only - unless someone brings the comments over here.

All I want to see on Smithman, like everything else in this contorted and controversial story, is that people give reasons and evidence for their theories. That way we edge nearer and nearer to the truth. 

To give one example.

One of my many 'proofs' that Martin Smith has 'been turned' - or maybe turned himself - into a McCann Team supporter who does their bidding is the extraordinary way in which his description of the age of the man he said he had seen was bent by the McCann Team when they placed an audio summary of his statememt on their website back in May 2009 (it's still there to thos day). 

In his original statement to the PJ, on 26 May 2007, Smth said the age of the man was '35 to 40'.

In a further statement, months later, he changed this to '40'.

But when one heard the Irish voice summarising Martin Smith's statement on the McCanns' website, all of a sudden he is able to be precise and say the man's age was 'about 34 to 35'.

Now why would any reliable witness change a statement made to the police: 'He was 40', to 'He was 34 to 35', when the McCanns wanted a summary of his statement on their website?

The answer surely is that no reliable witness would agree to do that.

There seem to be three possibilities here - all equally unsatisfactory:

1. The McCann Team for reasons best known to themselves wanted the man's age to be '34 to 35' - and Martin Smith meekly agreed

OR

2. Over the passage of time Martin Smith continued to ponder over the age of the man he said he saw for a second or two in the dark and - two years after the event - thought to himself: No, he wasn't 35 to 40, and wasn't 40, but was 'about 34 to 35'

OR

3. The McCann Team changed the age to '34-35' without telling Martin Smith - and Martin Smith has been too timid to object or simply isn't bothered.

Whether you pick (1), (2) or 3) above, Martin Smith isn't going to look too good on the witness stand.

Not one defender of the Smiths as honest witnesses has yet provided an answer to this point - not even Nit-picking Nuala Seaton
I've had a similar argument in the past on another board where I was 'reliably' informed that it's quite usual for the recollection of a witness to vary from one time to another due to time affecting memory recall.  Apparently it would be more suspicious if a witness stuck fast to their original statement of events.

Hmmm, yes -  next question.
'Is it likely that an eye witness (as in the case of Martin Smith)  would fluctuate one hour/day/week/month/year as to description, rendering the initial description null and void?'
 
Answer - a professional experience police officer would expect variations in witness statements, it's quite normal, nothing suspicious unless you're  a conspiraloon (?).

Hmmm, yes - clearly doesn't understand the question or can't answer, next question..
'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'

Answer - No I do not agree.  Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment.  As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.

Hmmm, yes - let battle commence!  No reasonable response, this is roughly where the insults about conspiracy theorists start to fly.

You can't expect a reasoned argument against the points you raise because your critics don't have one!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3550
Reputation : 2065
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.15 22:45

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:At the end of the day Tony, you have made your point/stance clear and I don't see why you need to keep going over and over the same ground.

REPLY: The 'Nine Phases of Smithman' IS new ground. I reverted to this specific issue of Martin Smith agreeing to change his witness statement - now saying the bloke he says he saw was 34-35 intsead of '40' in his police witness statement - because no-one seems to be able to counter this and other arguments of mine re Smithman. The level of argument overall on Smithman that I have encountered is along the lines of "The Smiths are decent, honourable people, I refuse to believe that any of them could lie", or "We must trust Operation Grane          

You will either be proven right or wrong. Nobody knows the answer at this point.

I myself am still suspicious of Gerry's sunglasses in the last photo even accepting PeterMac's assurances from two experts. I have researched the issue over the years and can't see how it is right.

I haven't, however, felt the need to create 8 threads on the subject and repeat my thoughts.

REPLY: The comparison is hardly fair! Smithman is the admitted 'centre of Operation Grange's focus' and therefore MUST be a matter for the deepest possible interest on boards like this one. The moment Nicola Wall says that Gerry's sunglasses become 'the centre of Operation Grange's focus', I'll be interested in that subject as well. The Smithman threads attract great interest - hundreds of posts and not far off 100,000 views here so far. I doubt if a thread on Gerry's sunglasses could muster a similar response

I could be wrong and short of doing a reconstruction I can't see how I'll ever find the answer (or for it to matter in the case!). The sunglasses and camera are probably long gone either way.

I'm sure a lot of what is being posted and talked about here and at MMM is born out of frustration of no news from OG. To be honest though I take it over the terrible daily articles we got for so many years.

Bottom line is OG interviewed the Smiths twice and went on Crimewatch to ask the public who the man is. We are not privy to any developments in this yet and all we can do is wait.

I know, and understand why, a lot think cover-up in this case...I think more like cover my arse. I think there is a lot of difference between the two.

REPLY: Can you honestly account for all the following being involved in the search for Madeleine within days of her disappearance if this is not a state cover-up?
* The Head of Blair's Media Monitoring Unit
* Several officers from Leicesterhire Police
* A secret group of top government agencies set up on 8 May 2007 and co-ordinated and chaired by Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of Leicesteshire 
* MI5
* Secret service/NCIS criminal profilers
* Control Risks Group
* Alex Woolfall and Bell Pottinger
* Alan Pike and colleagues from the Centre for Crisis Counselling in Skipton
* Chanellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown




____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.15 22:51

@Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Next question: 'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'

Answer - No I do not agree.  Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment.  As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.
In the case of Jane Tanner, it was seriously and persistently argued by McCann-supporters that in the hands of expert psychologists, hypnotists or forensic artists etc. etc. that people's memory of events could be imroved or enhanced over time.

But only in the hands of true experts - like Brian Kennedy's hired hand, Melissa Little!i

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Verdi on 23.08.15 23:11

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Next question: 'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'

Answer - No I do not agree.  Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment.  As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.
In the case of Jane Tanner, it was seriously and persistently argued by McCann-supporters that in the hands of expert psychologists, hypnotists or forensic artists etc. etc. that people's memory of events could be imroved or enhanced over time.

But only in the hands of true experts - like Brian Kennedy's hired hand, Melissa Little!i
And a nice attractive little incentive - like an offer she can't refuse!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3550
Reputation : 2065
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Mo on 23.08.15 23:13

Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone!  The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman.  I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected  in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 61
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.15 23:29

@Mo wrote:Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone!  The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman.  I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected  in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.
I think it all hangs on this question:

Is Operation Grange:

(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?

OR

b) an expensive and deliberate charade designed all along simply to continue influence public perception that there really was an abduction, with the 6.7 million audience for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special forming the pinnacle of DCI Redwood's achievement of deceiving the public?

Or perhaps I could put the question another way.

Was Wendy Murphy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

Right or Wrong?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 24.08.15 1:05

@Tony Bennett wrote:Can you honestly account for all the following being involved in the search for Madeleine within days of her disappearance if this is not a state cover-up?

* The Head of Blair's Media Monitoring Unit
* Several officers from Leicesterhire Police
* A secret group of top government agencies set up on 8 May 2007 and co-ordinated and chaired by Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of Leicesteshire 
* MI5
* Secret service/NCIS criminal profilers
* Control Risks Group
* Alex Woolfall and Bell Pottinger
* Alan Pike and colleagues from the Centre for Crisis Counselling in Skipton
* Chanellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown


I can take a wild guess?

Some of those in the list were initially genuine help after the McCanns/Tapas 7 called in favours from their seemingly long contact list. OC/MW probably brought in their own PR to cover their arse and may be that secret group was setup after realising they messed up. RM's quote fits nicely here.. "biggest f*ck up on this planet". John Buck, was he sent to PDL by downing street? or did he go there off his own back? Either way it created a big mess that had to be dealt with hence most in that list and CM etc.

So a cover up of the government mess up but I believe/hope OG is genuine. I'm just not completely confident they can crack it after so much time. Cases are hard enough when there isn't a government/political mess involved (see Claudia Lawrence case for e.g.)

I would really love to know what the views of the current Portuguese government/PJ are. I can't believe they would 1, entertain OG and 2, sit back passively whilst this complete cover-up was being executed?

Maybe I'm too wet behind the ears!?   help

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by guest12345 on 24.08.15 9:27

Verdi Yesterday at 8:13 pm


{@=4599}guest12345{/@} wrote:='4599' class='mentiontag' title='Viewing profile: guest12345'>@guest12345 wrote:[/mention] wrote:"Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?"
...........................................................................................................................................


I think the reason the investigation is still on-going is because the statements cannot be relied on, therefore OG are having to work from the outside-in rather than inside-out.
Therefore wouldn't it be more sensible and/or profitable to start work inside-out by re-interviewing the main players?
You can't re-interview those already interviewed unless new information relating to them specifically has come to light. Also, any information they could get from the tapas group would be pretty worthless and would not stand up in court as so much has been fabricated/changed/covered up. This is why the focus has been on 3rd party/independent witnesses.


The statements of the Tapas 9 were very quickly deemed worthless due to the contradictions, certain agreed activities and the 'pact of silence' approach, all pointing to the fact that the information within them was fabricated/altered/ manufactured by some, or all of them.
Indeed the Tapas9 statements were/are worthless - even more reason to work inside-out by re-interviewing.  The Metropolitan Police (Operation Grange) are a professional outfit aren't they?
Why bother wasting time and resources re-interviewing the tapas lot?? why waste time ans resources doing a reconstruction of utter rubbish, it's pointless, which is why it has not been done. Yes, they are a professional outfit, which is why they are not wasting their time on the tapas group. They know they weren't checking on their kids, they know the timeline for the supposed checks was to cover them etc. The only thing they would be interested in with the tapas group is who they saw around the complex and when and if any of that info lines up with independent witness statements. The focus of OG is not on the tapas group or the McCanns, so they are not the priority.


This is why IMO they haven't done a reconstruction... there's no point reconstructing false information, it's just wasting time. The only benefit to doing a reconstruction would be to highlight the fabrications to help eliminate certain times/scenarios, which is when the Tapas lot close up and refuse to do one. Non of them want to put themselves in a vulnerable position which could expose them all to child neglect charges.
The Tapas9 declined to participate in a reconstruction required by the Portuguese police not Operation Grange.  By this time of course they were firmly ensconced back at blighty, without the cooperation of the whole group the exercise was futile.  There was/is nothing to stop Operation Grange insisting on a reconstruction to highlight the inconsistencies in the original statements  - the very reason for the Portuguese requirement.  Question is why haven't they..
As above. No point re-constructing rubbish/fabrications. Waste of time.


I do however think that the OC staff and creche records are important.
Agreed!  Maybe Operation Grange should also be re-interviewing them, after all they did take time out (at the tax payers expense) to swan off to Portugal in quest of various persons of no interest, yet it seems they have neglected key witness on their own doorstep.
As above, unless new evidence relating to those individuals or their statements comes to light, they cannot be re-interviewed. They can ask them kindly if they would provide more info, but they cannot force them. Who says the tapas group are the key witnesses? As far as OG are concerned they aren't, as they were sat getting drunk in the restaurant so saw nothing. The key witnesses are who saw activities around the complex...the outside-in.


guest12345

Posts : 81
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2015-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

smithman 8

Post by willowthewisp on 24.08.15 13:23

Hi Guest12345,
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful"  Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?

willowthewisp

Posts : 1357
Reputation : 514
Join date : 2015-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by guest12345 on 24.08.15 14:07

Hi Guest12345,
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful"  Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
Correct. This is standard practice. They can ask them to assist, but they cannot force them to be re-interviewed unless there is new evidence. The tapas group have a pact of silence so would unlikely be volunteering to talk, as it would incriminate them on neglect charges. IMO OG would see no benefit in questioning them again as once a liar, always a liar. Nothing that they would/could say would stand up in court after cross examination.
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
Few reasons, but mainly...money. Everyone wins, media from stories, lawyers from court cases, McCanns from suing etc, police forces from getting funing allocated to pay for departments full of headcount, politicians getting publicity etc etc. Other reasons could be... intelligence held by certain agencies, damage limitation, connecting stories that need controlling into the public eye. IMO the only deception going on is with what OG and the media peddle to the public. The public want answers but OG can't give info on a live case, therefore i believe the majority of what is pushed out is just waffle/propaganda/made up, just to keep the public 'in the loop'.
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
I think the general consensus by the likes of Murdoch, gvt etc is that the McCanns are innocent and that the PJ made a complete hash of the investigation. Add to that the sheer amount of cash that the story brings to the Murdoch empire, then of course they will fight to keep the investigation going. Poor little Madeleine is a cash cow.
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?

guest12345

Posts : 81
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2015-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Mo on 24.08.15 15:52

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Mo wrote:Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone!  The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman.  I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected  in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.
I think it all hangs on this question:

Is Operation Grange:

(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?

Tony back in 2011/12 there are threads on this forum and others stating Jane Tanner fabricated her evidence and was not truthful about Tannerman - Operation Grange felt the same and disposed of him on Crimewatch in front of over 6 million people watching. ABDUCTOR NUMBER 1 DISPOSED OF!

Only a week or two ago TTWO (I think) posted some information about how Crimewatch works behind the scenes - which fits in nicely with what DCI Redwood did with the e-fits.  I hope TTWO posts the information up again:

Smithman
As you have stated Brian Kennedy hired Melissa Little to put  the e-fits together which I might add did GM no favours whatsoever.  The McCanns have sat on these e-fits for god knows how long and then they were passed to Operation Grange (not sure if this was by the McCanns or their PI's).
Operation Grange also sat on these e-fits for a number of months, why? because they have no relevance. I can imagine before the program went live, DCI Redwood informing the Control Room taking the calls from the public that they would be inundated with calls.  What did people on the forums think of them?  Well from what I've read some people think it's GM, some say it could be anybody, some say one of them or both look like somebody who lives down their road - and that is what Operation Grange think. ABDUCTION NUMBER 2 DISPOSED OF.  What was telling was the way the Mc's looked frightened really frightened and that will not have gone unnoticed!


Snr Amaral stated in his book that there was an accident and the little girl died in the apartment
Sir Bernard Hogen-Howe said something along the lines of the or that dead girl 
DCI Redwood has stated she may have died in the apartmen 5a
THE DOGS -
and what was encouraging was the support given to Snr Amaral by the MPS on the Gofundme.  It takes a lot of officers to donate £1000!

This why Jane Tanner's and the Smith family sightings have no relevance.




OR

b) an expensive and deliberate charade designed all along simply to continue influence public perception that there really was an abduction, with the 6.7 million audience for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special forming the pinnacle of DCI Redwood's achievement of deceiving the public?

Or perhaps I could put the question another way.

Was Wendy Murphy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

Right or Wrong?

This was Wendy Murphy's opinion which many other people have an opinion - the unfortunate thing is they talked over each other which I found irritating! WM could be right it probably was a PR exercise but the police do have to be good at PR see:

www.ehow.com/facts_7643057_police-public-relations-programs.html

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 61
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Mo on 24.08.15 19:35

Thank you!  smilie

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 61
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by sharonl on 24.08.15 19:52

@Tony Bennett wrote:
I think it all hangs on this question:

Is Operation Grange:

(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?

For me the answer lies in these questions:


  • Who was it that "persuaded" (blackmailed) the Prime Minister to set up Operation Grange?
  • Who is the one (and probably only) person to have benefitted from the setting up of Operation Grange?



Once this circus  review was set up we had news reports galore on its progress, most of it bogus but we even had Deadwood Redwood and his team fly over to Portugal, imo purely for photo shoots for the press.

Rebekah Brooks blackmailed the Prime Minister, how do we know that she didn't also blackmail a few dodgy cops at NSY?   We know that they exist, even Theresa May admitted to this.

How can an investigation set up purely to satisfy the  needs of a corrupt and glorified journalist be a genuine and wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3567
Reputation : 419
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.08.15 0:18

@ Mo - reference your post up the thread, where you wrote this (your post in blue, my replies in black):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tony back in 2011/12 there are threads on this forum and others stating Jane Tanner fabricated her evidence and was not truthful about Tannerman - Operation Grange felt the same and disposed of him on Crimewatch in front of over 6 million people watching. ABDUCTOR NUMBER 1 DISPOSED OF!

REPLY:  Yes, Crimewatch/Redwood said that Tannerman was no abductor. In fact he was Crecheman! One fabrication replaced by another one in the opinion of many, myself included. But what a masterstroke by Redwood (if you believed him):
1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness
2.  More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting.       

Only a week or two ago TTWO (I think) posted some information about how Crimewatch works behind the scenes - which fits in nicely with what DCI Redwood did with the e-fits.  

REPLY: Hmmm, maybe they do 'work behind the scenes', as you put it. But this was different.

Was the acted reconstruction anything like a true reconstruction of that evening's events - IMO, NO.  
Did Crecheman ever exist? - a man who kept silent for 6 years? Highly unlikely IMO.
Were those e-fits really produced by the Smiths? - The evidence is very strongly against it IMO.

No, on this occasion, Crimewatch appears to have been engaged in mass deception.

Smithman
As you have stated Brian Kennedy hired Melissa Little to put the e-fits together

REPLY AND CORRECTION: Brian Kennedy called in Melissa Little to do (A) the sketch of Tannerman and, later (B) the sketch of 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man' (NOTW, January 2008).  Brian Kennedy called in those two rogues Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton to arrange for the e-fits to be produced.
    
which I might add did GM no favours whatsoever.  

The McCanns have sat on these e-fits for god knows how long and then they were passed to Operation Grange (not sure if this was by the McCanns or their PI's).

REPLY: This is the history of the e-fits from what we have been told:

1. Produced in spring/summer 2008 by Henri Exton
2. Passed by the McCanns to both the PJ and Leicestershire Police 'by October 2009' (McCanns' words)
3. No action on the e-fits by either the private PIs, Leicestershire Police or the PJ
4. R-fits handed to Operation Grange spring 2011 by the McCanns, just after OG was set up
5. No action on the e-fits by Grange until Crimewatch Special, well over two years later.

If your case is that 'the McCanns sat on the e-fits', you would also need to explain why OG sat on them for some two and a half years (may 2011 to October 2013).    

Operation Grange also sat on these e-fits for a number of months, why?

REPLY: Two years and 5 months, see above

because they have no relevance.

REPLY: Yet Redwood told the nation that they were 'the centre of our focus' and urged his British audience of 6.7 million to help find him
   
I can imagine before the program went live, DCI Redwood informing the Control Room taking the calls from the public that they would be inundated with calls.  What did people on the forums think of them?  Well from what I've read some people think it's GM, some say it could be anybody, some say one of them or both look like somebody who lives down their road - and that is what Operation Grange think. ABDUCTION NUMBER 2 DISPOSED OF.  What was telling was the way the Mc's looked frightened really frightened and that will not have gone unnoticed!

REPLY: Sorry, Mo, I don't buy any of that one bit. A number of people have made great play of Gerry looking 'frightened', allegedly because one of the two e-fits projected above him looks like him. I understood in fact that that image was photoshopped. Even if it wasn't, OK, Gerry McCann looked tense that evening. If you look again in detail at my OP and see how the McCanns have systematically made use of the Smithman sighting since January 2008, even taking the liberty of altering Martin Smith's statement to make the age of the man he said he saw 34-35 instead of what he told the police: 40 - you'll surely understand that the McCanns have nothing to fear from Smithman. 

The McCanns had been promoting Smithman for nearly five years before the Crimewatch programme. What a good 'break' for them when Redwood (cough) 'found' Crecheman and in effect told the McCanns: 'Right, we've found Crecheman, now at last we can make good use of that Smithman sighting you've been promoting for the past five years. And we have another 45 minutes for the abduction to take place!'  

Snr Amaral stated in his book that there was an accident and the little girl died in the apartment

REPLY: Slightly different, he said he had NO EVIDENCE that her presumed death in the apartment was anything other than an accident supposed.

Sir Bernard Hogen-Howe said something along the lines of the or that dead girl 

DCI Redwood has stated she may have died in the apartmen 5a

REPLY: Yes, both are IMO helping the public to prepare for the eventual 'revelation' that the abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment  o and then ran off with her dead body.

THE DOGS -
and what was encouraging was the support given to Snr Amaral by the MPS on the Gofundme.  It takes a lot of officers to donate £1000!

REPLY: That means nothing if this is a massive cover-up led by the nation's top politicians  

This why Jane Tanner's and the Smith family sightings have no relevance.

REPLY: As I said above, the Smithman sighting is of massive relevance. The BBC together with Operation Grange achieved their goal of influencing public perception. It was a masterstroke:   


1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness

2.  More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting

3.  A credible abductor - Smithman.  



As I don't have a telly, I watched the Crimewatch McCann Special with a couple on my estate. Those three things are exactly what they both believed. Job done! And into the bargain they both thought what a marvellous job the Met Police had done!!        



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY  -  This was Wendy Murphy's opinion which many other people have an opinion - the unfortunate thing is they talked over each other which I found irritating!

REPLY: There is a verbatim transcript of that interview on this forum.

WM could be right it probably was a PR exercise but the police do have to be good at PR see:

REPLY: Back to my point about the couple on my estate. They believed the BBC and Redwood. They saw nothing amiss with what they thought was a genuine reconstruction of the night's events. They were mightily impressed that Crecheman had been 'found'. They were sure that the Irish family really did see a man walking towards the beach at 10.00pm carrying Madeleine. And so on.  Most of the other 6.7 million viewers would have thought exactly the same.

This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound. 







____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Smithman 8

Post by willowthewisp on 25.08.15 11:39

Hi Mr Bennett (Tony),
I wish to applaud the time and effort you have dedicated to this forum and finding out the truth of what happened to Madeleine Mccann on 3 May 2007 in apartment 5 a Ocean Club Apartment.
Your latest post describes as to what a farcical production Crime Watch was to the public in October 2013 as a deception to indicate a reason to the public that Madeleine McCann was "abducted by as yet an unknown person(s)"?
It is rather amazing that the supposed group of friends who were the last people possibly to have seen an a live Madeleine,"a pact of silence"produced duplicity accounts of what happened and there whereabouts and not take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, but then chose to take part in Dave Edgars production/reconstruction of 3 May 2007, were GMc decides on which side of the road he was when Jane Tanner states the opposite, then has an "Emotional moment", was this the truth sinking in of what they had taken part in?
In fact do you think that Crime Watch may have been used in the last eight years to facilitate some persons perception on the case by having a some what closer relationship on the facts of the case and should have used the PJ files and the statements taken from the Tapas friends, staff from Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff of there wherabouts?
It is quite clear there is a cover up and I suppose the only alternative would be a public inquiry but there is no likelihood of that when we will have "Operation Grange" to decipher first, if and when they decide to conclude, maybe after the defamation trial involving Mr Goncalo Amaral?

willowthewisp

Posts : 1357
Reputation : 514
Join date : 2015-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Angelique on 25.08.15 12:29

TB

I also applaud the work you have done in respect of finding the Truth in the disappearance of Madeleine and other cases discussed on the Forum.

I quote one of your replies to Mo:

"This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound."

But what of the Met. I always thought they were corrupt. But to produce CrimeWatch and have DCI Redwood deceive the people in such a way is atrocious.

I have even lost the respect of local Police Forces to the extent that I don't expect them to attend when called to local crime unless it's good for their PR.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Smithman

Post by kaz on 25.08.15 16:04

I think another reason that Andy Redwood finally  promoted the Smithman sighting  was to reinforce the 'fact' that the abduction happened on the evening of the 3rd. It was a gamble all round with Smithman looking so like Gerry ( and in my opinion not unlike the Redwood himself! ) but one worth taking to lay a completely false trail on the actual date of the disappearance. It's ridiculous to believe that the so called abduction could have happened on the evening of the 3rd ..................so much to do in so little time. If MBM had died on the 3rd,  logic dictates that they would have chosen the following evening as the abduction evening to allow them to do all the necessary planning to create the scenario. IMO the constant comings and goings of they and their friends   from tables to various apartments on the evening of the 3rd.  was just an act to promote the idea that they were doing regular checks.

kaz

Posts : 328
Reputation : 271
Join date : 2014-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.09.15 0:47

This illuminating correspondence between Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt) and David James Smith, Times journalist, from 2011, has just been re-published elsewhere. I add it here because of the last sentence, which is relevant to our discussions about 'Smithman'.

Apart from that, the correspondence is noteworthy (a) for two very good points made and sustained by Johanna in an exemplary, courteous manner - and (b) for the contemptuous way the arrogant bighead - that David James Smith clearly is - dismisses her points. The rage with which he replies to her is almost disturbing, as if somehow he is personally involved in the whole case in a way we don't yet know?   
,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


A conversation with the press, 08 July 2011 Unterdenteppichgekehrt and David James Smith

Friday 8 July 2011 at 15:38



Article in Question: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece

Johanna to DJS:


Dear Mr. Smith,

In your article “Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears”, from 16th December 2007, you mention this fact: “Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner had brought a monitor too, but theirs wasn’t getting much of a signal from the Tapas restaurant 50 yards away.”

The couple never mentioned to the PJ that they brought a monitor as well, in all their statements they claim that the Paynes were the only ones with a baby monitor. Only in April 2008, in the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police, this piece of information appeared. It might seem a small omission, but in the light of possible neglect charges, would have been important. Jane Tanner claims in the rogatory interview that she brought it with her in the evenings and positioned it on a ledge/wall behind her. This was NEVER mentioned to portuguese Police as the released statements show. The question I have is, how did you get this info before the rogatory interviews even took place? I know you have to protect sources, but this seems a very strange inside knowledge.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards


DJS to Johanna

Who are you and what is your interest in this case?

David


Johanna to DJS

I am sorry if I have upset you… Well I gave my name, I am from Germany and I am interested in the case. Since the files have been released I have been trying to build myself an opinion based solely on facts and no spin. I am in the possession of the DVD with the released case files and have spent a lot of time with their analysis. That is why I came upon this rather curious discrepancy regarding the baby monitor. There was a meeting of the McCanns and their friends in Rothley in November, and in December your article was published with this “new” fact. I am just curious where it suddenly came from.

Regards



DJS to Johanna

No i am not upset. I just don’t to fuel the web ghouls (i have no idea whether you are one of them or not…) who seem obsessed with what i consider to be the grotesque idea that the mccanns or their friends did away with madeleine. In addition to the further distress it must cause the mccanns and their friends on top of the devastating event that started it, I just feel it is a complete waste of time and energy. That said, however, I had a long briefing with Gerry McCann before I wrote my article and I guess the baby monitor info came from him. I am aware that many discrepancies arose in the portuguese statements through misunderstandings of language. And you ought to be aware that there will always be minor discrepancies of fact in statements – failings of memory, interpretation and so on – which are not in themselves sinister or suspicious.

One skill of good policing is sifting the wheat from the chaff and knowing what matters and what doesn’t. I strongly suspect the baby monitor issue lies in the latter category. As you will gather, I have every sympathy with the McCanns and no sympathy with those who want to play amateur detective in public on the net with no apparent consideration for the McCanns’ feelings.

I respect facts.

Rant over…

David



Johanna to DJS
 
Dear David,

thank you for the information about your source regarding the baby monitor. Allow me to add my 2c to the rest of your mail.

Last time I checked, the case was not solved, Madeleine had not turned up, and no evidence of an abduction had emerged. If you are content with the current status quo that is your prerogative, but I am of the opinion that the death or disappearance of a 3-year old girl should not simply be shelved after only a couple of months. To label all those that want explanations as ghouls is a preferred method of the media, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell to discredit and ridicule a thinking minority that is in the possession of the casefiles. To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions “add to the distress of the parents” is just an additional way to stop these questions.

I agree with you that the added fact of a second baby monitor, that never got mentioned in Portugal, is not important enough to change the course of an investigation that is no longer open. Still it was deliberately added and even “translation issues” cannot conceal the fact, that it was never mentioned to the Portuguese Police. The fact that the information was given to you by the then “Arguido” Gerald McCann, published without confirmation, does not instil confidence in the rest of the article.

But since you are of the opinion that sifting the wheat from the chaff is up to the police you are excused for not questioning the details. I know I won’t be granted another reply after my rant, but there is one question that I wanted to raise with a proper journalist for ages.

The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect “proof” for an abduction. A man carrying a “sleeping” girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press. No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never mentioned. Why?

Have a nice Sunday



DJS to Johanna
 
No, I won’t let you get away with that. You are asking me to endorse or tolerate a world in which interfering outsiders blunder around misinterpeting snippets of information and re-presenting them as suspicious facts, in reality half-facts. I do broadly think it is the job of the police to investigate crimes. Those are the people we appoint to do it on our behalf.
The media’s role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of…of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about them were formed long before the case file was released. There is also a sad desire to give weight to conspiracy theories.

On the basis of the hard established facts of the case – the way in which the characters’ lives intersect that evening, after Madeleine was last seen by anyone else – how many people would have to have known and been involved in the mccanns’ self-abducting or killing their own child? The police always start with motive. Every crime has a motive. What would be the motive and what could be so great a motive it involved all that group of people and was capable of being seemingly indefinitely concealed. What do you think, they were all paedophiles? Sex game enthusiasts? Child traffickers? Or merely agreed that pretending an abduction had been committed was the best way of disguising an accidental calpol overdose?

Come on, get real. Find something useful to do – go and campaign against war crimes in rwanda or something – and leave those poor people in peace. That is not emotional blackmail it is a recognition of their loss and an acceptance of the reality that not a single plausible suspicious shred about them has emerged in all the months since.

All those delusional sites devoted to conspiracy theories about the mccanns are kind of repugnant.


I can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.

David

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by comperedna on 29.09.15 12:35

WOW!  I've not seen that before.  What an utterly amazing correspondence!  There was Johanna being polite and on the ball, and D Smith being pompous, astoundingly rude about those who question the official version of Madeleine's disappearance (online ghouls), oddly extremely angry, and incredibly head-in-sand for someone supposedly a reporter (obviously not an investigative one) on a serious newspaper.

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

Post by woodpecker on 29.09.15 14:02

Thankyou Tony for posting that exchange of correspondence. It is trully mindblowing. I have just done a quick bit of research about David James Smith. he is approx 60 with a lifetime in journalism and writing. His area of expertise is economics and he has awards in the business/economics area. he has published books on well known criminal cases like Jamie Bulger, Jill Dando, Crippen.

The exchange of emails printed above was in 2011 after the book Madeleine was published so this was available for him to compare with earlier material.

How an experienced journalist writing for a quality paper who has also written non fiction books involving serious research come decide that there are no unanswered questions about the madeleine McCann case and that the poor parents are being unfairly targeted by internet ghouls with nothing better to do is quite beyond me. It is very very depressing.

woodpecker

Posts : 52
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2014-10-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum